Dataset Information

A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine.

ABSTRACT: The management of patients with colonic diverticular perforation is still evolving. Initial lavage with or without simple suture and drainage was suggested in the late 19th century, replaced progressively by the three-stage Mayo Clinic or the two-stage Mickulicz procedures. Fears of inadequate source control prompted the implementation of the resection of the affected segment of colon with formation of a colostomy (Hartman procedure) in the 1970's. Ensuing development of the treatment strategies was driven by the recognition of the high morbidity and mortality and low reversal rates associated with the Hartman procedure. This led to the wider use of resection and primary anastomosis during the 1990's. The technique of lavage and drainage regained popularity during the 1990's. This procedure can also be performed laparoscopically with the advantage of faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. This strategy allows resectional surgery to be postponed or avoided altogether in many patients; and higher rates of primary resection and anastomosis can be achieved avoiding the need for a stoma. The three recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage alone to resectional surgery reported inconsistent outcomes. The aim of this review is to review the historical evolution and future reflections of surgical treatment modalities for diffuse purulent and feculent peritonitis. In this review we classified the various surgical strategies according to Krukowski et al. and Vermeulen et al. and reviewed the literature related to surgical treatment separately for each period.

SUBMITTER: Cirocchi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5345194 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine.

Cirocchi Roberto R Afshar Sorena S Di Saverio Salomone S Popivanov Georgi G De Sol Angelo A Gubbiotti Francesca F Tugnoli Gregorio G Sartelli Massimo M Catena Fausto F Cavaliere David D Taboła Renata R Fingerhut Abe A Binda Gian Andrea GA

World journal of emergency surgery : WJES 20170309

The management of patients with colonic diverticular perforation is still evolving. Initial lavage with or without simple suture and drainage was suggested in the late 19th century, replaced progressively by the three-stage Mayo Clinic or the two-stage Mickulicz procedures. Fears of inadequate source control prompted the implementation of the resection of the affected segment of colon with formation of a colostomy (Hartman procedure) in the 1970's. Ensuing development of the treatment strategies ...[more]

PMID: 28293278

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) complications arise in approximately 8% to 35% patients and the most common ones are represented by phlegmon or abscess, followed by perforation, peritonitis, obstruction, and fistula. In accordance with current guidelines, patients affected by generalized peritonitis should undergo emergency surgery. However, decisions on whether and when to operate ACD patients remain a substantially debated topic while algorithm for the best treatment has not yet been determined. Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a well-established method in treating critically ill patients with traumatic abdomen injuries. At present, such surgical approach is also finding application in non-traumatic emergencies such as perforated ACD. Thanks to a thorough systematic review of the literature, we aimed at achieving deeper knowledge of both indications and short- and long-term outcomes related to DCS in perforated ACD.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.ResultsThe 8 included articles covered an approximately 13 years study period (2006-2018), with a total 359 patient population. At presentation, most patients showed III and IV American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (81.6%) while having Hinchey III perforated ACD (69.9%). Most patients received a limited resection plus vacuum-assisted closure at first-look while about half entire population underwent primary resection anastomosis (PRA) at a second-look. Overall morbidity rate, 30-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate at follow-up were between 23% and 74%, 0% and 20%, 7% and 33%, respectively. Patients had a 100% definitive abdominal wall closure rate and a definitive stoma rate at follow-up ranging between 0% and 33%.ConclusionDCS application to ACD patients seems to offer good outcomes with a lower percentage of patients with definitive ostomy, if compared to Hartmann's procedure. However, correct definition of DCS eligible patients is paramount in avoiding overtreatment. In accordance to 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines, DCS remains an effective surgical strategy in critically ill patients affected by sepsis/septic shock and hemodynamical unstability.

Project description:IntroductionDamage control surgery (DCS) with abdominal negative pressure therapy and delayed anastomosis creation in patients with perforated diverticulitis and generalized peritonitis was established at our Institution in 2006 and has been published. The concept was adopted in other hospitals and published as a case series. This is the first prospectively controlled randomized study comparing DCS and conventional treatment (Group C) in this setting.MethodsAll consecutive patients from 2013 to 2018 with indication for surgery were screened and randomized to Group DCS or Group C. The primary outcome was the rate of reconstructed bowel at discharge and at 6 month. Informed consent was obtained. The trial was approved by the local ethics committee and registered at CinicalTrials.gov: NCT04034407.ResultsA total of 56 patients were screened; 41 patients gave informed consent to participate and ultimately 21 patients (9 female) with intraoperatively confirmed Hinchey III (n = 14, 67%) or IV (n = 7, 33%), and a median (range) age of 66 (42-92), Mannheim Peritonitis Index of 25 (12-37) and Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 (0-10) were intraoperatively randomized and treated as Group DCS (n = 13) or Group C (n = 8). Per protocol analysis: A primary anastomosis without ileostomy (PA) was performed in 92% (11/12) patients in Group DCS at the second-look operation, one patient died before second look, and one underwent a Hartmann procedure (HP). In Group C 63% (5/8) patients received a PA and 38% (3/8) patients a HP. Two patients in Group C, but none in Group DCS experienced anastomotic leakage (AI). ICU and hospital stay was median (range) 2 (1-10) and 17.5 (12-43) in DCS and 2 (1-62) and 22 (13-65) days in group C. In Group DCS 8% (1/12) patients was discharged with a stoma versus 57% (4/7) in Group C (p = 0.038, n.s., α = 0.025); one patient died before discharge. The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for discharge with a stoma is 0.068 (0.005-0.861). Intent to treat analysis: A PA was performed in 90% (9/10) of patients randomized to DCS, one patient died before the second look, and one patient received a HP. In group C, 70% (7/10) were treated with PA and 30% (3/10) with HP. 29% (2/7) experienced AI treated with protective ileostomy. In group DCS, 9% (1/11) were discharged with a stoma versus 40% (4/10) in group C (p = 0.14, n.s.). The odds ratio for discharge with a stoma is 0.139 (0.012-1.608).ConclusionThis is the first prospectively randomized controlled study showing that damage control surgery in perforated diverticulitis Hinchey III and IV enhances reconstruction of bowel continuity and can reduce the stoma rate at discharge.

Project description:IntroductionDamage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II-IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD).MethodsA comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953).ResultsNine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%].ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.

Dataset Information

A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine.

Publications

A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets